Molecular organic compounds are employed as active materials in a variety of applications, including organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs), photovoltaic cells, and thin films. Recent successes in fabricating OLEDs have driven the development of OLED displays (see S. R. Forrest, Chem. Rev. 97, 1793 (1997)). OLEDs make use of thin organic films that emit light when voltage is applied across the device. OLEDs are becoming an increasingly popular technology for applications such as flat panel displays, illumination, and backlighting. OLED configurations include double heterostructure, single heterostructure, and single layer, and a wide variety of organic materials may be used to fabricate OLEDs. Several OLED materials and configurations are described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,707,745, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Typically, these thin (˜100 nm) film devices (including OLEDs and photovoltaic cells) are grown by thermal evaporation in high vacuum, permitting the high degree of purity and structural control needed for reliable and efficient operation (see S. R. Forrest, Chem. Rev. 97, 1793 (1997)). However, control of film thickness uniformity and dopant concentrations over large areas needed for manufactured products can be difficult when using vacuum evaporation (see S. Wolf and R. N. Tauber, Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era (Lattice, 1986)). In addition, a considerable fraction of the evaporant coats the cold walls of the deposition chamber. Over time, inefficient use of materials results in a thick coating which can flake off, leading to particulate contamination of the system and substrate. The potential throughput for vacuum evaporated organic thin film devices is low, resulting in high production costs. Low-pressure organic vapor phase deposition (LP-OVPD) has been demonstrated recently as a superior alternative technique to vacuum thermal evaporation (VTE), in that OVPD improves control over dopant concentration of the deposited film, and is adaptable to rapid, particle-free, uniform deposition of organics on large-area substrates (see M. A. Baldo, M. Deutsch, P. E. Burrows, H. Gossenberger, M. Gerstenberg, V. S. Ban, and S. R. Forrest, Adv. Mater. 10, 1505 (1998)).
Organic vapor phase deposition (OVPD) is inherently different from the widely used vacuum thermal evaporation (VTE), in that it uses a carrier gas to transport organic vapors into a deposition chamber, where the molecules diffuse across a boundary layer and physisorb on the substrate. This method of film deposition is most similar to hydride vapor phase epitaxy used in the growth of III-V semiconductors (see G. B. Stringfellow, Organometallic Vapor-Phase Epitaxy (Academic, London, 1989); G. H. Olsen, in GaInAsP, edited by T. P. Pearsall (Wiley, New York, 1982)). In LP-OVPD, the organic compound is thermally evaporated and then transported through a hot-walled gas carrier tube into a deposition chamber by an inert carrier gas toward a cooled substrate where condensation occurs. Flow patterns may be engineered to achieve a substrate-selective, uniform distribution of organic vapors, resulting in a very uniform coating thickness and minimized materials waste.
Using atmospheric pressure OVPD, Burrows et al. (see P. E. Burrows, S. R. Forrest, L. S. Sapochak, J. Schwartz, P. Fenter, T. Buma, V. S. Ban, and J. L. Forrest, J. Cryst. Growth 156, 91 (1995)) first synthesized a nonlinear optical organic salt 4′-dimethylamino-N-methyl-4-stilbazolium tosylate. In a variation on this method, Vaeth and Jensen (see K. M. Vaeth and K. Jensen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 2091 (1997)) used nitrogen to transport vapors of an aromatic precursor, which was polymerized on the substrate to yield films of poly (s-phenylene vinylene), a light-emitting polymer. Recently, Baldo and co-workers (see M. A. Baldo, V. G. Kozlov, P. E. Burrows, S. R. Forrest, V. S. Ban, B. Koene, and M. E. Thompson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 3033 (1997)) have demonstrated what is believed to be the first LP-OVPD growth of a heterostructure OLED consisting of N,N-di-(3-methylphenyl)-N,N diphenyl-4,4-diaminobiphenyl and aluminum tris(8-hydroxyquinoline) (Alq3), as well as an optically pumped organic laser consisting of rhodamine 6G doped into Alq3. More recently, Shtein et al. have determined the physical mechanisms controlling the growth of amorphous organic thin films by the process of LP-OVPD (see M. Shtein, H. F. Gossenberger, J. B. Benziger, and S. R. Forrest, J. Appl. Phys. 89:2, 1470 (2001)).
Virtually all of the organic materials used in thin film devices have sufficiently high vapor pressures to be evaporated at temperatures below 400° C. and then to be transported in the vapor phase by a carrier gas such as argon or nitrogen. This allows for positioning of evaporation sources outside of the reactor tube (as in the case of metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (see S. Wolf and R. N. Tauber, Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era (Lattice, 1986); G. B. Stringfellow, Organometallic Vapor-Phase Epitaxy (Academic, London, 1989))), spatially separating the functions of evaporation and transport, thus leading to precise control over the deposition process.
Though these examples demonstrate that OVPD has certain advantages over VTE in the deposition of organic films, especially over large substrate areas, the prior art has not addressed the special problems that arise when depositing an array of organic material.
As is the case for fabrication of arrays using VTE, to adapt OVPD to OLED technology, a shadow mask delineating the shape of the desired pixel grid is placed close to the substrate to define the pattern of deposition on the substrate. Control of the shadow mask patterning is a critical step, for example, in the fabrication of full-color OLED-based displays (see U.S. Pat. No. 6,048,630, Burrows, et al.). Ideally, the resultant pattern on a substrate is identical to that cut into the shadow mask, with minimal lateral dispersion and optimal thickness uniformity of the deposited material. However, despite the overall advantages of OVPD in depositing organic layers, the use of the shadow mask in OVPD has certain disadvantages including: significant lateral dispersion compared to VTE; material waste; potential for dust contamination on the film from the mask; and difficulty in controlling the mask-substrate separation for large area applications.